Pathway Summary”

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic	N	Overall, N = 391	control, N = 191	treatment, N = 201	p-value2
age	39	50.16 ± 13.09 (25 - 72)	49.31 ± 13.19 (25 - 72)	50.98 ± 13.28 (32 - 72)	0.696
gender	39				0.257
f		26 (67%)	11 (58%)	15 (75%)
m		13 (33%)	8 (42%)	5 (25%)
occupation	39				0.946
full_time		5 (13%)	3 (16%)	2 (10%)
homemaker		2 (5.1%)	1 (5.3%)	1 (5.0%)
other		2 (5.1%)	0 (0%)	2 (10%)
part_time		6 (15%)	4 (21%)	2 (10%)
retired		11 (28%)	5 (26%)	6 (30%)
self_employ		2 (5.1%)	1 (5.3%)	1 (5.0%)
t_and_e		2 (5.1%)	1 (5.3%)	1 (5.0%)
unemploy		9 (23%)	4 (21%)	5 (25%)
marital	39				>0.999
divore		5 (13%)	3 (16%)	2 (10%)
married		7 (18%)	3 (16%)	4 (20%)
none		21 (54%)	10 (53%)	11 (55%)
seperation		3 (7.7%)	2 (11%)	1 (5.0%)
widow		3 (7.7%)	1 (5.3%)	2 (10%)
edu	39				0.479
bachelor		12 (31%)	5 (26%)	7 (35%)
diploma		7 (18%)	5 (26%)	2 (10%)
hd_ad		1 (2.6%)	1 (5.3%)	0 (0%)
postgraduate		4 (10%)	2 (11%)	2 (10%)
primary		4 (10%)	1 (5.3%)	3 (15%)
secondary_1_3		2 (5.1%)	0 (0%)	2 (10%)
secondary_4_5		8 (21%)	5 (26%)	3 (15%)
secondary_6_7		1 (2.6%)	0 (0%)	1 (5.0%)
fam_income	39				0.863
10001_12000		3 (7.7%)	1 (5.3%)	2 (10%)
12001_14000		1 (2.6%)	1 (5.3%)	0 (0%)
14001_16000		4 (10%)	1 (5.3%)	3 (15%)
16001_18000		2 (5.1%)	1 (5.3%)	1 (5.0%)
18001_20000		1 (2.6%)	1 (5.3%)	0 (0%)
20001_above		7 (18%)	5 (26%)	2 (10%)
2001_4000		5 (13%)	2 (11%)	3 (15%)
4001_6000		6 (15%)	3 (16%)	3 (15%)
6001_8000		3 (7.7%)	2 (11%)	1 (5.0%)
8001_10000		3 (7.7%)	1 (5.3%)	2 (10%)
below_2000		4 (10%)	1 (5.3%)	3 (15%)
medication	39	34 (87%)	16 (84%)	18 (90%)	0.661
onset_duration	39	16.70 ± 12.83 (0 - 56)	17.78 ± 15.00 (1 - 56)	15.68 ± 10.66 (0 - 35)	0.616
onset_age	39	33.46 ± 12.66 (15 - 62)	31.53 ± 11.38 (16 - 55)	35.30 ± 13.82 (15 - 62)	0.360
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic	N	Overall, N = 391	control, N = 191	treatment, N = 201	p-value2
recovery_stage_a	39	3.54 ± 1.23 (1 - 5)	3.58 ± 1.22 (1 - 5)	3.50 ± 1.28 (1 - 5)	0.845
recovery_stage_b	39	18.41 ± 2.74 (9 - 23)	18.53 ± 3.03 (9 - 23)	18.30 ± 2.52 (14 - 23)	0.800
ras_confidence	39	31.28 ± 4.45 (22 - 40)	31.00 ± 3.86 (26 - 40)	31.55 ± 5.03 (22 - 39)	0.705
ras_willingness	39	12.33 ± 2.04 (7 - 15)	12.53 ± 1.71 (9 - 15)	12.15 ± 2.35 (7 - 15)	0.572
ras_goal	39	17.92 ± 2.99 (12 - 24)	18.11 ± 2.73 (13 - 23)	17.75 ± 3.29 (12 - 24)	0.716
ras_reliance	39	13.46 ± 3.21 (8 - 20)	13.42 ± 2.89 (8 - 18)	13.50 ± 3.56 (8 - 20)	0.940
ras_domination	39	10.26 ± 2.52 (3 - 15)	11.11 ± 1.73 (8 - 15)	9.45 ± 2.91 (3 - 14)	0.039
symptom	39	29.69 ± 10.67 (14 - 56)	28.53 ± 9.00 (14 - 45)	30.80 ± 12.18 (15 - 56)	0.513
slof_work	39	23.23 ± 5.09 (10 - 30)	24.05 ± 4.60 (15 - 30)	22.45 ± 5.52 (10 - 30)	0.332
slof_relationship	39	26.82 ± 5.74 (11 - 35)	27.84 ± 5.33 (19 - 35)	25.85 ± 6.08 (11 - 35)	0.285
satisfaction	39	21.62 ± 6.99 (5 - 30)	20.47 ± 6.74 (5 - 29)	22.70 ± 7.23 (5 - 30)	0.327
mhc_emotional	39	11.85 ± 3.48 (4 - 18)	11.42 ± 2.87 (7 - 17)	12.25 ± 4.01 (4 - 18)	0.465
mhc_social	39	15.26 ± 4.89 (6 - 25)	15.68 ± 4.50 (8 - 25)	14.85 ± 5.32 (6 - 23)	0.601
mhc_psychological	39	23.08 ± 5.89 (6 - 36)	22.63 ± 5.45 (13 - 33)	23.50 ± 6.39 (6 - 36)	0.651
resilisnce	39	17.23 ± 4.80 (6 - 25)	17.16 ± 4.48 (6 - 24)	17.30 ± 5.20 (7 - 25)	0.928
social_provision	39	13.74 ± 3.21 (5 - 20)	13.79 ± 2.80 (10 - 20)	13.70 ± 3.63 (5 - 19)	0.932
els_value_living	39	17.38 ± 3.02 (5 - 23)	17.26 ± 1.82 (13 - 20)	17.50 ± 3.89 (5 - 23)	0.810
els_life_fulfill	39	13.26 ± 3.38 (4 - 18)	12.58 ± 3.31 (5 - 17)	13.90 ± 3.40 (4 - 18)	0.227
els	39	30.64 ± 5.70 (9 - 40)	29.84 ± 4.14 (22 - 36)	31.40 ± 6.89 (9 - 40)	0.400
social_connect	39	26.31 ± 10.41 (8 - 48)	26.00 ± 9.10 (8 - 45)	26.60 ± 11.75 (8 - 48)	0.860
shs_agency	39	14.46 ± 4.76 (3 - 20)	14.42 ± 4.03 (3 - 20)	14.50 ± 5.47 (3 - 20)	0.960
shs_pathway	39	16.92 ± 3.69 (4 - 22)	16.63 ± 2.91 (9 - 21)	17.20 ± 4.37 (4 - 22)	0.637
shs	39	31.38 ± 7.78 (7 - 42)	31.05 ± 6.51 (16 - 41)	31.70 ± 8.99 (7 - 42)	0.799
esteem	39	12.62 ± 1.16 (10 - 15)	12.84 ± 0.90 (11 - 14)	12.40 ± 1.35 (10 - 15)	0.240
mlq_search	39	15.51 ± 3.19 (3 - 21)	15.79 ± 2.62 (12 - 21)	15.25 ± 3.71 (3 - 20)	0.605
mlq_presence	39	13.90 ± 4.00 (3 - 21)	14.79 ± 2.20 (12 - 19)	13.05 ± 5.08 (3 - 21)	0.178
mlq	39	29.41 ± 6.47 (6 - 41)	30.58 ± 4.59 (25 - 40)	28.30 ± 7.81 (6 - 41)	0.277
empower	39	20.26 ± 4.28 (6 - 28)	20.74 ± 3.07 (14 - 24)	19.80 ± 5.22 (6 - 28)	0.502
ismi_resistance	39	15.08 ± 2.87 (5 - 20)	15.16 ± 2.17 (12 - 19)	15.00 ± 3.46 (5 - 20)	0.866
ismi_discrimation	39	11.18 ± 3.31 (5 - 19)	12.11 ± 3.14 (5 - 17)	10.30 ± 3.29 (5 - 19)	0.089
sss_affective	39	9.49 ± 4.32 (3 - 18)	9.84 ± 3.62 (3 - 15)	9.15 ± 4.97 (3 - 18)	0.624
sss_behavior	39	9.62 ± 4.53 (3 - 18)	10.32 ± 4.45 (3 - 18)	8.95 ± 4.63 (3 - 18)	0.354
sss_cognitive	39	7.95 ± 4.13 (3 - 18)	7.58 ± 3.81 (3 - 15)	8.30 ± 4.49 (3 - 18)	0.592
sss	39	27.05 ± 12.07 (9 - 54)	27.74 ± 10.42 (9 - 44)	26.40 ± 13.69 (9 - 54)	0.734
1Mean ± SD (Range)
2Two Sample t-test

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Group	Characteristic	Beta	SE1	95% CI1	p-value
recovery_stage_a	(Intercept)	3.58	0.278	3.03, 4.12
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.079	0.389	-0.841, 0.683	0.840
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.145	0.468	-0.773, 1.06	0.768
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.855	0.805	-0.724, 2.43	0.331
	Pseudo R square	0.028
recovery_stage_b	(Intercept)	18.5	0.632	17.3, 19.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.226	0.883	-1.96, 1.50	0.799
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.632	0.542	-1.69, 0.430	0.307
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.808	0.937	-1.03, 2.64	0.436
	Pseudo R square	0.004
ras_confidence	(Intercept)	31.0	1.026	29.0, 33.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.550	1.433	-2.26, 3.36	0.703
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.221	0.758	-1.71, 1.26	0.785
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.95	1.311	-0.616, 4.52	0.209
	Pseudo R square	0.013
ras_willingness	(Intercept)	12.5	0.465	11.6, 13.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.376	0.649	-1.65, 0.895	0.565
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.869	0.650	-2.14, 0.405	0.242
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.901	1.121	-1.30, 3.10	0.459
	Pseudo R square	0.017
ras_goal	(Intercept)	18.1	0.683	16.8, 19.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.355	0.954	-2.22, 1.51	0.712
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.311	0.654	-1.59, 0.971	0.657
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.063	1.131	-2.28, 2.15	0.958
	Pseudo R square	0.005
ras_reliance	(Intercept)	13.4	0.747	12.0, 14.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.079	1.043	-1.97, 2.12	0.940
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.031	0.690	-1.32, 1.38	0.966
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.923	1.194	-1.42, 3.26	0.479
	Pseudo R square	0.004
ras_domination	(Intercept)	11.1	0.557	10.0, 12.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.66	0.778	-3.18, -0.131	0.040
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-1.79	1.096	-3.94, 0.356	0.136
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	3.33	1.876	-0.348, 7.01	0.107
	Pseudo R square	0.107
symptom	(Intercept)	28.5	2.464	23.7, 33.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	2.27	3.440	-4.47, 9.02	0.513
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-2.84	1.749	-6.27, 0.588	0.178
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	3.05	3.027	-2.88, 8.99	0.369
	Pseudo R square	0.022
slof_work	(Intercept)	24.1	1.156	21.8, 26.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.60	1.615	-4.77, 1.56	0.327
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-1.70	0.957	-3.57, 0.178	0.150
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	2.00	1.656	-1.25, 5.24	0.293
	Pseudo R square	0.025
slof_relationship	(Intercept)	27.8	1.297	25.3, 30.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.99	1.812	-5.54, 1.56	0.279
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-3.34	1.328	-5.94, -0.735	0.060
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	5.03	2.295	0.530, 9.53	0.087
	Pseudo R square	0.041
satisfaction	(Intercept)	20.5	1.602	17.3, 23.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	2.23	2.236	-2.16, 6.61	0.326
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	3.07	1.704	-0.274, 6.41	0.145
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.65	2.945	-7.42, 4.12	0.604
	Pseudo R square	0.032
mhc_emotional	(Intercept)	11.4	0.785	9.88, 13.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.829	1.096	-1.32, 2.98	0.454
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.08	1.882	-2.61, 4.77	0.570
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	3.17	3.159	-3.02, 9.36	0.321
	Pseudo R square	0.086
mhc_social	(Intercept)	15.7	1.229	13.3, 18.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.834	1.716	-4.20, 2.53	0.630
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	3.27	2.582	-1.79, 8.33	0.222
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-6.13	4.404	-14.8, 2.50	0.181
	Pseudo R square	0.061
mhc_psychological	(Intercept)	22.6	1.369	19.9, 25.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.868	1.912	-2.88, 4.62	0.652
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.69	3.150	-4.48, 7.87	0.598
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-2.54	5.331	-13.0, 7.91	0.639
	Pseudo R square	0.009
resilisnce	(Intercept)	17.2	1.116	15.0, 19.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.142	1.559	-2.91, 3.20	0.928
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.310	0.908	-1.47, 2.09	0.750
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-3.40	1.571	-6.48, -0.322	0.095
	Pseudo R square	0.017
social_provision	(Intercept)	13.8	0.738	12.3, 15.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.089	1.030	-2.11, 1.93	0.931
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.190	0.649	-1.46, 1.08	0.784
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.26	1.122	-0.941, 3.46	0.324
	Pseudo R square	0.005
els_value_living	(Intercept)	17.3	0.700	15.9, 18.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.237	0.978	-1.68, 2.15	0.810
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.245	0.216	-0.669, 0.179	0.320
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.740	0.374	-1.47, -0.006	0.119
	Pseudo R square	0.006
els_life_fulfill	(Intercept)	12.6	0.766	11.1, 14.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.32	1.070	-0.776, 3.42	0.225
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.768	0.915	-1.03, 2.56	0.448
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.851	1.580	-3.95, 2.25	0.618
	Pseudo R square	0.035
els	(Intercept)	29.8	1.312	27.3, 32.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.56	1.832	-2.03, 5.15	0.401
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.377	0.970	-1.52, 2.28	0.717
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.64	1.678	-4.92, 1.65	0.383
	Pseudo R square	0.017
social_connect	(Intercept)	26.0	2.430	21.2, 30.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.600	3.393	-6.05, 7.25	0.861
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	4.59	1.136	2.37, 6.82	0.015
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.335	1.966	-3.52, 4.19	0.873
	Pseudo R square	0.023
shs_agency	(Intercept)	14.4	1.105	12.3, 16.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.079	1.543	-2.95, 3.10	0.959
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	2.54	0.901	0.776, 4.31	0.048
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-2.29	1.558	-5.34, 0.764	0.215
	Pseudo R square	0.022
shs_pathway	(Intercept)	16.6	0.846	15.0, 18.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.568	1.182	-1.75, 2.88	0.633
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.02	0.954	-0.852, 2.89	0.347
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.05	1.647	-4.28, 2.18	0.558
	Pseudo R square	0.008
shs	(Intercept)	31.1	1.805	27.5, 34.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.647	2.520	-4.29, 5.59	0.799
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	3.51	0.685	2.17, 4.85	0.007
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-3.91	1.185	-6.23, -1.58	0.030
	Pseudo R square	0.015
esteem	(Intercept)	12.8	0.263	12.3, 13.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.442	0.367	-1.16, 0.277	0.235
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.158	0.630	-1.08, 1.39	0.803
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.058	1.058	-2.13, 2.02	0.957
	Pseudo R square	0.041
mlq_search	(Intercept)	15.8	0.737	14.3, 17.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.539	1.029	-2.56, 1.48	0.603
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.239	1.125	-1.97, 2.44	0.841
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.395	1.937	-4.19, 3.40	0.847
	Pseudo R square	0.009
mlq_presence	(Intercept)	14.8	0.905	13.0, 16.6
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.74	1.264	-4.22, 0.738	0.177
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.137	0.837	-1.78, 1.50	0.878
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.04	1.448	-3.88, 1.80	0.512
	Pseudo R square	0.055
mlq	(Intercept)	30.6	1.476	27.7, 33.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-2.28	2.061	-6.32, 1.76	0.276
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.216	1.880	-3.47, 3.90	0.914
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.35	3.245	-7.71, 5.01	0.697
	Pseudo R square	0.036
empower	(Intercept)	20.7	0.985	18.8, 22.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.937	1.375	-3.63, 1.76	0.500
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.457	0.559	-1.55, 0.638	0.460
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.43	0.967	-3.33, 0.462	0.212
	Pseudo R square	0.023
ismi_resistance	(Intercept)	15.2	0.638	13.9, 16.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.158	0.892	-1.91, 1.59	0.860
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.825	1.411	-3.59, 1.94	0.589
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.40	2.399	-3.30, 6.10	0.584
	Pseudo R square	0.008
ismi_discrimation	(Intercept)	12.1	0.720	10.7, 13.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.81	1.006	-3.78, 0.166	0.081
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-1.05	1.354	-3.70, 1.61	0.501
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.412	2.321	-4.14, 4.96	0.871
	Pseudo R square	0.077
sss_affective	(Intercept)	9.84	1.002	7.88, 11.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.692	1.399	-3.43, 2.05	0.624
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.197	0.415	-1.01, 0.616	0.659
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.09	0.718	-0.313, 2.50	0.202
	Pseudo R square	0.006
sss_behavior	(Intercept)	10.3	1.037	8.28, 12.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.37	1.449	-4.21, 1.47	0.352
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.678	0.545	-1.75, 0.390	0.282
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.55	0.944	-0.303, 3.40	0.177
	Pseudo R square	0.020
sss_cognitive	(Intercept)	7.58	0.952	5.71, 9.44
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.721	1.329	-1.88, 3.33	0.591
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	2.48	1.386	-0.241, 5.19	0.150
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-2.79	2.388	-7.47, 1.89	0.307
	Pseudo R square	0.027
sss	(Intercept)	27.7	2.796	22.3, 33.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.34	3.904	-8.99, 6.32	0.734
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.24	1.552	-1.80, 4.28	0.470
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.821	2.687	-4.45, 6.09	0.775
	Pseudo R square	0.005
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.58 (95% CI [3.03, 4.12], t(39) = 12.86, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.84, 0.68], t(39) = -0.20, p = 0.839; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.57])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.77, 1.06], t(39) = 0.31, p = 0.756; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.89])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.85, 95% CI [-0.72, 2.43], t(39) = 1.06, p = 0.289; Std. beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.61, 2.04])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.92) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.44e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.53 (95% CI [17.29, 19.77], t(39) = 29.30, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-1.96, 1.50], t(39) = -0.26, p = 0.798; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.57])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-1.69, 0.43], t(39) = -1.17, p = 0.243; Std. beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.16])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [-1.03, 2.64], t(39) = 0.86, p = 0.389; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.39, 1.00])

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.94) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.00 (95% CI [28.99, 33.01], t(39) = 30.21, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-2.26, 3.36], t(39) = 0.38, p = 0.701; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.77])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-1.71, 1.26], t(39) = -0.29, p = 0.771; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.29])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.95, 95% CI [-0.62, 4.52], t(39) = 1.49, p = 0.136; Std. beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.03])

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.53 (95% CI [11.62, 13.44], t(39) = 26.96, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-1.65, 0.90], t(39) = -0.58, p = 0.562; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.82, 0.45])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.87, 95% CI [-2.14, 0.41], t(39) = -1.34, p = 0.181; Std. beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-1.07, 0.20])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.90, 95% CI [-1.30, 3.10], t(39) = 0.80, p = 0.421; Std. beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.64, 1.54])

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.90) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.69e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.11 (95% CI [16.77, 19.44], t(39) = 26.51, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-2.22, 1.51], t(39) = -0.37, p = 0.709; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.76, 0.52])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-1.59, 0.97], t(39) = -0.48, p = 0.635; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.33])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-2.28, 2.15], t(39) = -0.06, p = 0.955; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.78, 0.74])

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.91) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.15e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.42 (95% CI [11.96, 14.89], t(39) = 17.96, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-1.97, 2.12], t(39) = 0.08, p = 0.940; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.67])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-1.32, 1.38], t(39) = 0.04, p = 0.965; Std. beta = 9.67e-03, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.44])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [-1.42, 3.26], t(39) = 0.77, p = 0.440; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.45, 1.03])

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.54) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.11. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.11 (95% CI [10.01, 12.20], t(39) = 19.94, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.66, 95% CI [-3.18, -0.13], t(39) = -2.13, p = 0.033; Std. beta = -0.66, 95% CI [-1.27, -0.05])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.79, 95% CI [-3.94, 0.36], t(39) = -1.64, p = 0.102; Std. beta = -0.72, 95% CI [-1.58, 0.14])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 3.33, 95% CI [-0.35, 7.01], t(39) = 1.77, p = 0.076; Std. beta = 1.33, 95% CI [-0.14, 2.80])

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.95) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.53 (95% CI [23.70, 33.36], t(39) = 11.58, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.27, 95% CI [-4.47, 9.02], t(39) = 0.66, p = 0.509; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.85])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.84, 95% CI [-6.27, 0.59], t(39) = -1.62, p = 0.104; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.06])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 3.05, 95% CI [-2.88, 8.99], t(39) = 1.01, p = 0.313; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.84])

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.93) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.05 (95% CI [21.79, 26.32], t(39) = 20.80, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.60, 95% CI [-4.77, 1.56], t(39) = -0.99, p = 0.321; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.98, 0.32])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.70, 95% CI [-3.57, 0.18], t(39) = -1.77, p = 0.076; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.04])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.00, 95% CI [-1.25, 5.24], t(39) = 1.21, p = 0.227; Std. beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.26, 1.08])

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.89) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.84 (95% CI [25.30, 30.38], t(39) = 21.46, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.99, 95% CI [-5.54, 1.56], t(39) = -1.10, p = 0.272; Std. beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-1.00, 0.28])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -3.34, 95% CI [-5.94, -0.73], t(39) = -2.51, p = 0.012; Std. beta = -0.60, 95% CI [-1.07, -0.13])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 5.03, 95% CI [0.53, 9.53], t(39) = 2.19, p = 0.028; Std. beta = 0.90, 95% CI [0.10, 1.71])

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.88) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 20.47 (95% CI [17.33, 23.61], t(39) = 12.78, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.23, 95% CI [-2.16, 6.61], t(39) = 1.00, p = 0.320; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.97])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 3.07, 95% CI [-0.27, 6.41], t(39) = 1.80, p = 0.072; Std. beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.94])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.65, 95% CI [-7.42, 4.12], t(39) = -0.56, p = 0.575; Std. beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-1.09, 0.60])

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s explanatory power related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is 0.09. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.42 (95% CI [9.88, 12.96], t(39) = 14.55, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.83, 95% CI [-1.32, 2.98], t(39) = 0.76, p = 0.449; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.86])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.08, 95% CI [-2.61, 4.77], t(39) = 0.57, p = 0.566; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.75, 1.38])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 3.17, 95% CI [-3.02, 9.36], t(39) = 1.00, p = 0.315; Std. beta = 0.92, 95% CI [-0.87, 2.70])

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.42) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.68 (95% CI [13.28, 18.09], t(39) = 12.76, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.83, 95% CI [-4.20, 2.53], t(39) = -0.49, p = 0.627; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.77, 0.47])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 3.27, 95% CI [-1.79, 8.33], t(39) = 1.27, p = 0.205; Std. beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-0.33, 1.53])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -6.13, 95% CI [-14.77, 2.50], t(39) = -1.39, p = 0.164; Std. beta = -1.13, 95% CI [-2.71, 0.46])

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is moderate (conditional R2 = 0.18) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.57e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.63 (95% CI [19.95, 25.32], t(39) = 16.53, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [-2.88, 4.62], t(39) = 0.45, p = 0.650; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.80])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.69, 95% CI [-4.48, 7.87], t(39) = 0.54, p = 0.591; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.77, 1.36])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.54, 95% CI [-12.99, 7.91], t(39) = -0.48, p = 0.634; Std. beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-2.25, 1.37])

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.93) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.16 (95% CI [14.97, 19.35], t(39) = 15.37, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-2.91, 3.20], t(39) = 0.09, p = 0.927; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.70])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-1.47, 2.09], t(39) = 0.34, p = 0.733; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.46])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -3.40, 95% CI [-6.48, -0.32], t(39) = -2.16, p = 0.030; Std. beta = -0.74, 95% CI [-1.41, -0.07])

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.92) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.83e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.79 (95% CI [12.34, 15.24], t(39) = 18.69, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-2.11, 1.93], t(39) = -0.09, p = 0.931; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.64])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-1.46, 1.08], t(39) = -0.29, p = 0.769; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.36])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.26, 95% CI [-0.94, 3.46], t(39) = 1.12, p = 0.262; Std. beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.31, 1.14])

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.99) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.74e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.26 (95% CI [15.89, 18.64], t(39) = 24.65, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-1.68, 2.15], t(39) = 0.24, p = 0.809; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.74])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.18], t(39) = -1.13, p = 0.257; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.06])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.74, 95% CI [-1.47, -6.09e-03], t(39) = -1.98, p = 0.048; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.50, -2.08e-03])

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.85) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.58 (95% CI [11.08, 14.08], t(39) = 16.42, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.32, 95% CI [-0.78, 3.42], t(39) = 1.23, p = 0.217; Std. beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.24, 1.04])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-1.03, 2.56], t(39) = 0.84, p = 0.401; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.78])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.85, 95% CI [-3.95, 2.25], t(39) = -0.54, p = 0.590; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-1.20, 0.68])

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.94) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.84 (95% CI [27.27, 32.41], t(39) = 22.75, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.56, 95% CI [-2.03, 5.15], t(39) = 0.85, p = 0.395; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.93])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-1.52, 2.28], t(39) = 0.39, p = 0.697; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.41])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.64, 95% CI [-4.92, 1.65], t(39) = -0.97, p = 0.330; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.89, 0.30])

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.98) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.00 (95% CI [21.24, 30.76], t(39) = 10.70, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-6.05, 7.25], t(39) = 0.18, p = 0.860; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.72])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 4.59, 95% CI [2.37, 6.82], t(39) = 4.04, p < .001; Std. beta = 0.45, 95% CI [0.23, 0.68])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-3.52, 4.19], t(39) = 0.17, p = 0.865; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.41])

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.93) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.42 (95% CI [12.26, 16.59], t(39) = 13.05, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-2.95, 3.10], t(39) = 0.05, p = 0.959; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.67])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.54, 95% CI [0.78, 4.31], t(39) = 2.82, p = 0.005; Std. beta = 0.55, 95% CI [0.17, 0.93])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.29, 95% CI [-5.34, 0.76], t(39) = -1.47, p = 0.142; Std. beta = -0.49, 95% CI [-1.15, 0.16])

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.86) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.47e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.63 (95% CI [14.97, 18.29], t(39) = 19.65, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-1.75, 2.88], t(39) = 0.48, p = 0.630; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.82])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.02, 95% CI [-0.85, 2.89], t(39) = 1.07, p = 0.286; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.82])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.05, 95% CI [-4.28, 2.18], t(39) = -0.64, p = 0.524; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-1.21, 0.62])

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.98) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.05 (95% CI [27.52, 34.59], t(39) = 17.21, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-4.29, 5.59], t(39) = 0.26, p = 0.797; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.74])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.51, 95% CI [2.17, 4.85], t(39) = 5.13, p < .001; Std. beta = 0.47, 95% CI [0.29, 0.64])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -3.91, 95% CI [-6.23, -1.58], t(39) = -3.30, p < .001; Std. beta = -0.52, 95% CI [-0.83, -0.21])

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s explanatory power related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.84 (95% CI [12.33, 13.36], t(39) = 48.85, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-1.16, 0.28], t(39) = -1.20, p = 0.228; Std. beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-1.03, 0.25])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-1.08, 1.39], t(39) = 0.25, p = 0.802; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.95, 1.23])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-2.13, 2.02], t(39) = -0.05, p = 0.956; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-1.88, 1.78])

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.21e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.79 (95% CI [14.35, 17.23], t(39) = 21.43, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-2.56, 1.48], t(39) = -0.52, p = 0.600; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.48])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-1.97, 2.44], t(39) = 0.21, p = 0.832; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.79])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-4.19, 3.40], t(39) = -0.20, p = 0.838; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-1.36, 1.10])

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.91) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.79 (95% CI [13.02, 16.56], t(39) = 16.34, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.74, 95% CI [-4.22, 0.74], t(39) = -1.38, p = 0.169; Std. beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-1.10, 0.19])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-1.78, 1.50], t(39) = -0.16, p = 0.870; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.39])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.04, 95% CI [-3.88, 1.80], t(39) = -0.72, p = 0.472; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-1.01, 0.47])

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.82) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.58 (95% CI [27.69, 33.47], t(39) = 20.72, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.28, 95% CI [-6.32, 1.76], t(39) = -1.11, p = 0.269; Std. beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-1.01, 0.28])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-3.47, 3.90], t(39) = 0.11, p = 0.909; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.63])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.35, 95% CI [-7.71, 5.01], t(39) = -0.42, p = 0.677; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-1.24, 0.80])

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.97) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 20.74 (95% CI [18.81, 22.67], t(39) = 21.06, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.94, 95% CI [-3.63, 1.76], t(39) = -0.68, p = 0.496; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.90, 0.43])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-1.55, 0.64], t(39) = -0.82, p = 0.414; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.16])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.43, 95% CI [-3.33, 0.46], t(39) = -1.48, p = 0.138; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.82, 0.11])

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.29) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.35e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.16 (95% CI [13.91, 16.41], t(39) = 23.74, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-1.91, 1.59], t(39) = -0.18, p = 0.859; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.59])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.83, 95% CI [-3.59, 1.94], t(39) = -0.58, p = 0.559; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-1.33, 0.72])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.40, 95% CI [-3.30, 6.10], t(39) = 0.58, p = 0.559; Std. beta = 0.52, 95% CI [-1.23, 2.27])

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.08. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.11 (95% CI [10.69, 13.52], t(39) = 16.81, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.81, 95% CI [-3.78, 0.17], t(39) = -1.80, p = 0.073; Std. beta = -0.58, 95% CI [-1.21, 0.05])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.05, 95% CI [-3.70, 1.61], t(39) = -0.77, p = 0.439; Std. beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-1.19, 0.52])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-4.14, 4.96], t(39) = 0.18, p = 0.859; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-1.33, 1.59])

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.98) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.30e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.84 (95% CI [7.88, 11.81], t(39) = 9.82, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.69, 95% CI [-3.43, 2.05], t(39) = -0.49, p = 0.621; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.80, 0.48])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-1.01, 0.62], t(39) = -0.48, p = 0.635; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.14])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.09, 95% CI [-0.31, 2.50], t(39) = 1.52, p = 0.128; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.58])

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.97) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.32 (95% CI [8.28, 12.35], t(39) = 9.94, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.37, 95% CI [-4.21, 1.47], t(39) = -0.94, p = 0.346; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.96, 0.34])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.68, 95% CI [-1.75, 0.39], t(39) = -1.24, p = 0.213; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.09])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.55, 95% CI [-0.30, 3.40], t(39) = 1.64, p = 0.101; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.78])

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 7.58 (95% CI [5.71, 9.44], t(39) = 7.97, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-1.88, 3.33], t(39) = 0.54, p = 0.587; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.81])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.48, 95% CI [-0.24, 5.19], t(39) = 1.79, p = 0.074; Std. beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-0.06, 1.27])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.79, 95% CI [-7.47, 1.89], t(39) = -1.17, p = 0.242; Std. beta = -0.68, 95% CI [-1.82, 0.46])

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.97) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.14e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.74 (95% CI [22.26, 33.22], t(39) = 9.92, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.34, 95% CI [-8.99, 6.32], t(39) = -0.34, p = 0.732; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.76, 0.53])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.24, 95% CI [-1.80, 4.28], t(39) = 0.80, p = 0.425; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.36])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.82, 95% CI [-4.45, 6.09], t(39) = 0.31, p = 0.760; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.51])

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome	model	npar	AIC	BIC	logLik	deviance	Chisq	Df	p
recovery_stage_a	null	3	146.146	151.566	-70.073	140.146
recovery_stage_a	random	6	149.363	160.203	-68.682	137.363	2.783	3	0.426
recovery_stage_b	null	3	211.066	216.486	-102.533	205.066
recovery_stage_b	random	6	215.226	226.066	-101.613	203.226	1.839	3	0.606
ras_confidence	null	3	254.398	259.818	-124.199	248.398
ras_confidence	random	6	257.012	267.852	-122.506	245.012	3.385	3	0.336
ras_willingness	null	3	189.639	195.059	-91.820	183.639
ras_willingness	random	6	193.298	204.138	-90.649	181.298	2.342	3	0.505
ras_goal	null	3	218.180	223.600	-106.090	212.180
ras_goal	random	6	223.491	234.331	-105.745	211.491	0.689	3	0.876
ras_reliance	null	3	226.452	231.872	-110.226	220.452
ras_reliance	random	6	231.159	241.999	-109.580	219.159	1.293	3	0.731
ras_domination	null	3	214.301	219.721	-104.150	208.301
ras_domination	random	6	213.581	224.421	-100.790	201.581	6.720	3	0.081
symptom	null	3	333.066	338.486	-163.533	327.066
symptom	random	6	335.384	346.224	-161.692	323.384	3.682	3	0.298
slof_work	null	3	267.417	272.837	-130.709	261.417
slof_work	random	6	269.132	279.972	-128.566	257.132	4.285	3	0.232
slof_relationship	null	3	282.755	288.175	-138.377	276.755
slof_relationship	random	6	282.035	292.875	-135.018	270.035	6.719	3	0.081
satisfaction	null	3	300.231	305.651	-147.115	294.231
satisfaction	random	6	301.433	312.273	-144.716	289.433	4.798	3	0.187
mhc_emotional	null	3	243.098	248.518	-118.549	237.098
mhc_emotional	random	6	246.214	257.054	-117.107	234.214	2.884	3	0.410
mhc_social	null	3	282.836	288.256	-138.418	276.836
mhc_social	random	6	285.571	296.411	-136.786	273.571	3.265	3	0.353
mhc_psychological	null	3	290.562	295.982	-142.281	284.562
mhc_psychological	random	6	296.097	306.937	-142.049	284.097	0.464	3	0.927
resilisnce	null	3	264.455	269.875	-129.227	258.455
resilisnce	random	6	265.748	276.588	-126.874	253.748	4.707	3	0.195
social_provision	null	3	225.258	230.678	-109.629	219.258
social_provision	random	6	229.420	240.260	-108.710	217.420	1.838	3	0.607
els_value_living	null	3	214.202	219.622	-104.101	208.202
els_value_living	random	6	212.195	223.035	-100.098	200.195	8.007	3	0.046
els_life_fulfill	null	3	232.661	238.081	-113.330	226.661
els_life_fulfill	random	6	236.426	247.266	-112.213	224.426	2.235	3	0.525
els	null	3	275.165	280.585	-134.582	269.165
els	random	6	279.149	289.988	-133.574	267.149	2.016	3	0.569
social_connect	null	3	334.080	339.500	-164.040	328.080
social_connect	random	6	329.131	339.971	-158.565	317.131	10.949	3	0.012
shs_agency	null	3	265.666	271.086	-129.833	259.666
shs_agency	random	6	264.857	275.697	-126.428	252.857	6.809	3	0.078
shs_pathway	null	3	240.338	245.758	-117.169	234.338
shs_pathway	random	6	244.686	255.526	-116.343	232.686	1.652	3	0.648
shs	null	3	306.150	311.570	-150.075	300.150
shs	random	6	299.855	310.695	-143.927	287.855	12.295	3	0.006
esteem	null	3	143.795	149.215	-68.897	137.795
esteem	random	6	147.764	158.604	-67.882	135.764	2.031	3	0.566
mlq_search	null	3	230.260	235.680	-112.130	224.260
mlq_search	random	6	235.815	246.655	-111.907	223.815	0.445	3	0.931
mlq_presence	null	3	245.920	251.340	-119.960	239.920
mlq_presence	random	6	248.425	259.265	-118.213	236.425	3.494	3	0.322
mlq	null	3	291.973	297.393	-142.986	285.973
mlq	random	6	296.201	307.041	-142.101	284.201	1.771	3	0.621
empower	null	3	250.039	255.459	-122.020	244.039
empower	random	6	250.158	260.998	-119.079	238.158	5.881	3	0.118
ismi_resistance	null	3	221.558	226.978	-107.779	215.558
ismi_resistance	random	6	226.931	237.771	-107.465	214.931	0.627	3	0.890
ismi_discrimation	null	3	234.005	239.425	-114.002	228.005
ismi_discrimation	random	6	235.995	246.835	-111.998	223.995	4.009	3	0.260
sss_affective	null	3	245.028	250.448	-119.514	239.028
sss_affective	random	6	247.962	258.802	-117.981	235.962	3.066	3	0.382
sss_behavior	null	3	251.775	257.195	-122.887	245.775
sss_behavior	random	6	253.938	264.778	-120.969	241.938	3.837	3	0.280
sss_cognitive	null	3	256.029	261.449	-125.015	250.029
sss_cognitive	random	6	258.247	269.087	-123.123	246.247	3.783	3	0.286
sss	null	3	339.888	345.308	-166.944	333.888
sss	random	6	343.827	354.667	-165.913	331.827	2.062	3	0.560

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome	time	control			treatment			between
outcome	time	n	estimate	within es	n	estimate	within es	p	es
recovery_stage_a	1st	19	3.58 ± 1.21		20	3.50 ± 1.21		0.840	0.111
recovery_stage_a	2nd	4	3.72 ± 1.06	-0.204	2	4.50 ± 1.03	-1.403	0.409	-1.088
recovery_stage_b	1st	19	18.53 ± 2.76		20	18.30 ± 2.76		0.799	0.291
recovery_stage_b	2nd	4	17.89 ± 1.60	0.812	2	18.48 ± 1.36	-0.225	0.649	-0.747
ras_confidence	1st	19	31.00 ± 4.47		20	31.55 ± 4.47		0.703	-0.507
ras_confidence	2nd	4	30.78 ± 2.46	0.204	2	33.28 ± 2.03	-1.598	0.201	-2.309
ras_willingness	1st	19	12.53 ± 2.02		20	12.15 ± 2.02		0.565	0.391
ras_willingness	2nd	4	11.66 ± 1.53	0.902	2	12.18 ± 1.45	-0.033	0.690	-0.545
ras_goal	1st	19	18.11 ± 2.98		20	17.75 ± 2.98		0.712	0.376
ras_goal	2nd	4	17.79 ± 1.81	0.329	2	17.38 ± 1.58	0.396	0.775	0.443
ras_reliance	1st	19	13.42 ± 3.26		20	13.50 ± 3.26		0.940	-0.079
ras_reliance	2nd	4	13.45 ± 1.95	-0.031	2	14.45 ± 1.69	-0.958	0.526	-1.007
ras_domination	1st	19	11.11 ± 2.43		20	9.45 ± 2.43		0.040	0.954
ras_domination	2nd	4	9.31 ± 2.43	1.033	2	10.99 ± 2.43	-0.886	0.441	-0.965
symptom	1st	19	28.53 ± 10.74		20	30.80 ± 10.74		0.513	-0.909
symptom	2nd	4	25.69 ± 5.85	1.136	2	31.01 ± 4.78	-0.085	0.247	-2.130
slof_work	1st	19	24.05 ± 5.04		20	22.45 ± 5.04		0.327	1.166
slof_work	2nd	4	22.35 ± 2.89	1.236	2	22.75 ± 2.44	-0.219	0.862	-0.289
slof_relationship	1st	19	27.84 ± 5.66		20	25.85 ± 5.66		0.279	1.036
slof_relationship	2nd	4	24.50 ± 3.55	1.736	2	27.54 ± 3.14	-0.880	0.306	-1.579
satisfaction	1st	19	20.47 ± 6.98		20	22.70 ± 6.98		0.326	-0.900
satisfaction	2nd	4	23.54 ± 4.47	-1.240	2	24.11 ± 3.99	-0.572	0.876	-0.232
mhc_emotional	1st	19	11.42 ± 3.42		20	12.25 ± 3.42		0.454	-0.242
mhc_emotional	2nd	4	12.50 ± 4.04	-0.315	2	16.50 ± 4.12	-1.242	0.266	-1.169
mhc_social	1st	19	15.68 ± 5.36		20	14.85 ± 5.36		0.630	0.199
mhc_social	2nd	4	18.96 ± 5.71	-0.781	2	11.99 ± 5.76	0.682	0.180	1.662
mhc_psychological	1st	19	22.63 ± 5.97		20	23.50 ± 5.97		0.652	-0.160
mhc_psychological	2nd	4	24.32 ± 6.91	-0.312	2	22.65 ± 7.03	0.156	0.784	0.308
resilisnce	1st	19	17.16 ± 4.87		20	17.30 ± 4.87		0.928	-0.109
resilisnce	2nd	4	17.47 ± 2.77	-0.238	2	14.21 ± 2.33	2.372	0.148	2.501
social_provision	1st	19	13.79 ± 3.22		20	13.70 ± 3.22		0.931	0.096
social_provision	2nd	4	13.60 ± 1.89	0.204	2	14.77 ± 1.61	-1.144	0.442	-1.252
els_value_living	1st	19	17.26 ± 3.05		20	17.50 ± 3.05		0.810	-0.773
els_value_living	2nd	4	17.02 ± 1.45	0.800	2	16.52 ± 1.05	3.215	0.631	1.642
els_life_fulfill	1st	19	12.58 ± 3.34		20	13.90 ± 3.34		0.225	-0.988
els_life_fulfill	2nd	4	13.35 ± 2.28	-0.574	2	13.82 ± 2.09	0.062	0.806	-0.352
els	1st	19	29.84 ± 5.72		20	31.40 ± 5.72		0.401	-1.123
els	2nd	4	30.22 ± 3.15	-0.272	2	30.14 ± 2.60	0.907	0.975	0.056
social_connect	1st	19	26.00 ± 10.59		20	26.60 ± 10.59		0.861	-0.372
social_connect	2nd	4	30.59 ± 5.27	-2.846	2	31.53 ± 3.99	-3.054	0.810	-0.579
shs_agency	1st	19	14.42 ± 4.82		20	14.50 ± 4.82		0.959	-0.061
shs_agency	2nd	4	16.96 ± 2.74	-1.967	2	14.75 ± 2.31	-0.195	0.315	1.710
shs_pathway	1st	19	16.63 ± 3.69		20	17.20 ± 3.69		0.633	-0.410
shs_pathway	2nd	4	17.65 ± 2.43	-0.733	2	17.17 ± 2.20	0.024	0.812	0.347
shs	1st	19	31.05 ± 7.87		20	31.70 ± 7.87		0.799	-0.667
shs	2nd	4	34.56 ± 3.81	-3.616	2	31.30 ± 2.81	0.408	0.243	3.357
esteem	1st	19	12.84 ± 1.15		20	12.40 ± 1.15		0.235	0.386
esteem	2nd	4	13.00 ± 1.35	-0.138	2	12.50 ± 1.38	-0.087	0.676	0.436
mlq_search	1st	19	15.79 ± 3.21		20	15.25 ± 3.21		0.603	0.320
mlq_search	2nd	4	16.03 ± 2.58	-0.142	2	15.09 ± 2.48	0.093	0.678	0.555
mlq_presence	1st	19	14.79 ± 3.95		20	13.05 ± 3.95		0.177	1.441
mlq_presence	2nd	4	14.65 ± 2.36	0.113	2	11.87 ± 2.05	0.976	0.159	2.304
mlq	1st	19	30.58 ± 6.43		20	28.30 ± 6.43		0.276	0.825
mlq	2nd	4	30.79 ± 4.56	-0.078	2	27.17 ± 4.24	0.411	0.358	1.314
empower	1st	19	20.74 ± 4.29		20	19.80 ± 4.29		0.500	1.178
empower	2nd	4	20.28 ± 2.21	0.574	2	17.91 ± 1.73	2.376	0.161	2.980
ismi_resistance	1st	19	15.16 ± 2.78		20	15.00 ± 2.78		0.860	0.067
ismi_resistance	2nd	4	14.33 ± 3.11	0.350	2	15.58 ± 3.16	-0.245	0.652	-0.527
ismi_discrimation	1st	19	12.11 ± 3.14		20	10.30 ± 3.14		0.080	0.854
ismi_discrimation	2nd	4	11.06 ± 3.01	0.496	2	9.66 ± 2.99	0.301	0.602	0.659
sss_affective	1st	19	9.84 ± 4.37		20	9.15 ± 4.37		0.624	1.176
sss_affective	2nd	4	9.64 ± 2.14	0.335	2	10.05 ± 1.59	-1.524	0.797	-0.683
sss_behavior	1st	19	10.32 ± 4.52		20	8.95 ± 4.52		0.352	1.761
sss_behavior	2nd	4	9.64 ± 2.29	0.875	2	9.82 ± 1.77	-1.120	0.915	-0.234
sss_cognitive	1st	19	7.58 ± 4.15		20	8.30 ± 4.15		0.591	-0.349
sss_cognitive	2nd	4	10.05 ± 3.22	-1.200	2	7.98 ± 3.07	0.154	0.462	1.004
sss	1st	19	27.74 ± 12.19		20	26.40 ± 12.19		0.734	0.605
sss	2nd	4	28.98 ± 6.24	-0.561	2	28.46 ± 4.86	-0.932	0.912	0.234

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(38.60) = -0.20, p = 0.840, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-0.87 to 0.71)

2st

t(10.08) = 0.86, p = 0.409, Cohen d = -1.09, 95% CI (-1.23 to 2.78)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(37.33) = -0.26, p = 0.799, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-2.01 to 1.56)

2st

t(15.76) = 0.46, p = 0.649, Cohen d = -0.75, 95% CI (-2.08 to 3.24)

ras_confidence

1st

t(37.24) = 0.38, p = 0.703, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-2.35 to 3.45)

2st

t(19.61) = 1.32, p = 0.201, Cohen d = -2.31, 95% CI (-1.45 to 6.45)

ras_willingness

1st

t(38.01) = -0.58, p = 0.565, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-1.69 to 0.94)

2st

t(9.82) = 0.41, p = 0.690, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-2.33 to 3.38)

ras_goal

1st

t(37.42) = -0.37, p = 0.712, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-2.29 to 1.58)

2st

t(13.55) = -0.29, p = 0.775, Cohen d = 0.44, 95% CI (-3.51 to 2.68)

ras_reliance

1st

t(37.39) = 0.08, p = 0.940, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-2.03 to 2.19)

2st

t(14.20) = 0.65, p = 0.526, Cohen d = -1.01, 95% CI (-2.30 to 4.30)

ras_domination

1st

t(39.46) = -2.13, p = 0.040, Cohen d = 0.95, 95% CI (-3.23 to -0.08)

2st

t(12.85) = 0.80, p = 0.441, Cohen d = -0.96, 95% CI (-2.88 to 6.23)

symptom

1st

t(37.22) = 0.66, p = 0.513, Cohen d = -0.91, 95% CI (-4.70 to 9.24)

2st

t(20.78) = 1.19, p = 0.247, Cohen d = -2.13, 95% CI (-3.97 to 14.62)

slof_work

1st

t(37.31) = -0.99, p = 0.327, Cohen d = 1.17, 95% CI (-4.87 to 1.67)

2st

t(16.55) = 0.18, p = 0.862, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-4.36 to 5.15)

slof_relationship

1st

t(37.49) = -1.10, p = 0.279, Cohen d = 1.04, 95% CI (-5.66 to 1.68)

2st

t(12.51) = 1.07, p = 0.306, Cohen d = -1.58, 95% CI (-3.13 to 9.21)

satisfaction

1st

t(37.53) = 1.00, p = 0.326, Cohen d = -0.90, 95% CI (-2.30 to 6.76)

2st

t(11.98) = 0.16, p = 0.876, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-7.27 to 8.42)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(41.00) = 0.76, p = 0.454, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-1.38 to 3.04)

2st

t(41.00) = 1.13, p = 0.266, Cohen d = -1.17, 95% CI (-3.16 to 11.16)

mhc_social

1st

t(39.95) = -0.49, p = 0.630, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-4.30 to 2.63)

2st

t(16.23) = -1.40, p = 0.180, Cohen d = 1.66, 95% CI (-17.50 to 3.56)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(40.77) = 0.45, p = 0.652, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-2.99 to 4.73)

2st

t(30.46) = -0.28, p = 0.784, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-14.02 to 10.68)

resilisnce

1st

t(37.30) = 0.09, p = 0.928, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-3.02 to 3.30)

2st

t(16.97) = -1.51, p = 0.148, Cohen d = 2.50, 95% CI (-7.80 to 1.28)

social_provision

1st

t(37.35) = -0.09, p = 0.931, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-2.18 to 2.00)

2st

t(15.20) = 0.79, p = 0.442, Cohen d = -1.25, 95% CI (-1.99 to 4.32)

els_value_living

1st

t(37.04) = 0.24, p = 0.810, Cohen d = -0.77, 95% CI (-1.74 to 2.22)

2st

t(40.90) = -0.48, p = 0.631, Cohen d = 1.64, 95% CI (-2.60 to 1.59)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(37.69) = 1.23, p = 0.225, Cohen d = -0.99, 95% CI (-0.85 to 3.49)

2st

t(10.74) = 0.25, p = 0.806, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-3.64 to 4.58)

els

1st

t(37.24) = 0.85, p = 0.401, Cohen d = -1.12, 95% CI (-2.15 to 5.27)

2st

t(19.58) = -0.03, p = 0.975, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-5.13 to 4.98)

social_connect

1st

t(37.09) = 0.18, p = 0.861, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-6.27 to 7.47)

2st

t(34.80) = 0.24, p = 0.810, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-6.90 to 8.77)

shs_agency

1st

t(37.30) = 0.05, p = 0.959, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-3.05 to 3.20)

2st

t(16.93) = -1.04, p = 0.315, Cohen d = 1.71, 95% CI (-6.71 to 2.29)

shs_pathway

1st

t(37.61) = 0.48, p = 0.633, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-1.82 to 2.96)

2st

t(11.30) = -0.24, p = 0.812, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-4.82 to 3.85)

shs

1st

t(37.06) = 0.26, p = 0.799, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (-4.46 to 5.75)

2st

t(39.28) = -1.18, p = 0.243, Cohen d = 3.36, 95% CI (-8.82 to 2.30)

esteem

1st

t(41.00) = -1.20, p = 0.235, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-1.18 to 0.30)

2st

t(41.00) = -0.42, p = 0.676, Cohen d = 0.44, 95% CI (-2.90 to 1.90)

mlq_search

1st

t(38.24) = -0.52, p = 0.603, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-2.62 to 1.54)

2st

t(9.72) = -0.43, p = 0.678, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-5.81 to 3.94)

mlq_presence

1st

t(37.39) = -1.38, p = 0.177, Cohen d = 1.44, 95% CI (-4.30 to 0.82)

2st

t(14.19) = -1.49, p = 0.159, Cohen d = 2.30, 95% CI (-6.78 to 1.22)

mlq

1st

t(37.80) = -1.11, p = 0.276, Cohen d = 0.83, 95% CI (-6.45 to 1.89)

2st

t(10.25) = -0.96, p = 0.358, Cohen d = 1.31, 95% CI (-11.99 to 4.74)

empower

1st

t(37.14) = -0.68, p = 0.500, Cohen d = 1.18, 95% CI (-3.72 to 1.85)

2st

t(28.44) = -1.44, p = 0.161, Cohen d = 2.98, 95% CI (-5.74 to 1.00)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(40.41) = -0.18, p = 0.860, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-1.96 to 1.64)

2st

t(21.85) = 0.46, p = 0.652, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-4.40 to 6.89)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(39.16) = -1.80, p = 0.080, Cohen d = 0.85, 95% CI (-3.84 to 0.23)

2st

t(11.56) = -0.54, p = 0.602, Cohen d = 0.66, 95% CI (-7.08 to 4.29)

sss_affective

1st

t(37.07) = -0.49, p = 0.624, Cohen d = 1.18, 95% CI (-3.53 to 2.14)

2st

t(37.78) = 0.26, p = 0.797, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (-2.74 to 3.54)

sss_behavior

1st

t(37.12) = -0.94, p = 0.352, Cohen d = 1.76, 95% CI (-4.30 to 1.57)

2st

t(31.10) = 0.11, p = 0.915, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-3.28 to 3.64)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(38.11) = 0.54, p = 0.591, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-1.97 to 3.41)

2st

t(9.73) = -0.77, p = 0.462, Cohen d = 1.00, 95% CI (-8.12 to 3.98)

sss

1st

t(37.13) = -0.34, p = 0.734, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-9.25 to 6.57)

2st

t(29.21) = -0.11, p = 0.912, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-10.01 to 8.98)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(6.12) = 1.40, p = 0.420, Cohen d = -1.40, 95% CI (-0.74 to 2.74)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(4.32) = 0.23, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-1.93 to 2.28)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(4.23) = 1.60, p = 0.364, Cohen d = -1.60, 95% CI (-1.22 to 4.68)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(5.13) = 0.03, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-2.43 to 2.50)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(4.42) = -0.40, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-2.91 to 2.16)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(4.38) = 0.96, p = 0.777, Cohen d = -0.96, 95% CI (-1.72 to 3.63)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(8.42) = 0.89, p = 0.794, Cohen d = -0.89, 95% CI (-2.40 to 5.47)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(4.21) = 0.08, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-6.60 to 7.03)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(4.30) = 0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-3.42 to 4.02)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(4.49) = 0.88, p = 0.849, Cohen d = -0.88, 95% CI (-3.44 to 6.82)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(4.54) = 0.57, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-5.16 to 7.99)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(35.06) = 1.41, p = 0.334, Cohen d = -1.24, 95% CI (-1.86 to 10.36)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(10.76) = -0.70, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.68, 95% CI (-11.93 to 6.21)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(20.67) = -0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-11.43 to 9.74)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(4.28) = -2.37, p = 0.145, Cohen d = 2.37, 95% CI (-6.62 to 0.44)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(4.34) = 1.14, p = 0.625, Cohen d = -1.14, 95% CI (-1.45 to 3.58)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(4.04) = -3.21, p = 0.064, Cohen d = 3.22, 95% CI (-1.83 to -0.14)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(4.72) = -0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-3.59 to 3.43)

els

1st vs 2st

t(4.23) = -0.91, p = 0.827, Cohen d = 0.91, 95% CI (-5.03 to 2.52)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(4.09) = 3.05, p = 0.074, Cohen d = -3.05, 95% CI (0.48 to 9.37)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(4.29) = 0.19, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-3.25 to 3.75)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(4.62) = -0.02, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-3.70 to 3.63)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(4.06) = -0.41, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.41, 95% CI (-3.08 to 2.29)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(35.06) = 0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.95 to 2.15)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(5.49) = -0.09, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-4.38 to 4.07)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(4.38) = -0.97, p = 0.762, Cohen d = 0.98, 95% CI (-4.42 to 2.07)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(4.86) = -0.41, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.41, 95% CI (-8.32 to 6.05)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(4.13) = -2.37, p = 0.149, Cohen d = 2.38, 95% CI (-4.07 to 0.29)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(14.51) = 0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-4.27 to 5.43)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(7.45) = -0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-5.55 to 4.28)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(4.07) = 1.52, p = 0.402, Cohen d = -1.52, 95% CI (-0.73 to 2.52)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(4.11) = 1.12, p = 0.648, Cohen d = -1.12, 95% CI (-1.26 to 3.00)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(5.28) = -0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-5.55 to 4.92)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(4.12) = 0.93, p = 0.806, Cohen d = -0.93, 95% CI (-4.01 to 8.13)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(5.77) = 0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.10 to 1.39)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(4.28) = -1.15, p = 0.623, Cohen d = 0.81, 95% CI (-2.12 to 0.86)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(4.20) = -0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-2.31 to 1.87)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(4.97) = -1.27, p = 0.519, Cohen d = 0.90, 95% CI (-2.63 to 0.89)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(4.36) = -0.46, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-2.11 to 1.49)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(4.33) = 0.04, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.87 to 1.93)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(7.53) = -1.47, p = 0.363, Cohen d = 1.03, 95% CI (-4.63 to 1.05)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(4.18) = -1.60, p = 0.362, Cohen d = 1.14, 95% CI (-7.67 to 1.99)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(4.26) = -1.75, p = 0.303, Cohen d = 1.24, 95% CI (-4.34 to 0.94)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(4.42) = -2.45, p = 0.129, Cohen d = 1.74, 95% CI (-6.98 to 0.31)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(4.46) = 1.75, p = 0.295, Cohen d = -1.24, 95% CI (-1.60 to 7.74)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(25.31) = 0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-3.38 to 5.54)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(9.20) = 1.12, p = 0.579, Cohen d = -0.78, 95% CI (-3.29 to 9.84)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(15.61) = 0.47, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-6.01 to 9.40)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(4.25) = 0.34, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-2.19 to 2.81)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(4.29) = -0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-1.98 to 1.60)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(4.03) = -1.13, p = 0.641, Cohen d = 0.80, 95% CI (-0.84 to 0.35)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(4.62) = 0.81, p = 0.915, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-1.73 to 3.27)

els

1st vs 2st

t(4.20) = 0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-2.30 to 3.05)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(4.08) = 4.02, p = 0.030, Cohen d = -2.85, 95% CI (1.45 to 7.74)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(4.25) = 2.78, p = 0.093, Cohen d = -1.97, 95% CI (0.06 to 5.03)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(4.54) = 1.03, p = 0.706, Cohen d = -0.73, 95% CI (-1.59 to 3.63)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(4.05) = 5.11, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -3.62, 95% CI (1.61 to 5.41)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(25.31) = 0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.34 to 1.65)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(5.26) = 0.20, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-2.79 to 3.26)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(4.33) = -0.16, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-2.44 to 2.17)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(4.74) = 0.11, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-4.90 to 5.33)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(4.11) = -0.81, p = 0.923, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-2.00 to 1.09)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(11.72) = -0.51, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-4.35 to 2.70)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(6.80) = -0.70, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.50, 95% CI (-4.59 to 2.49)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(4.06) = -0.47, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-1.35 to 0.95)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(4.10) = -1.24, p = 0.565, Cohen d = 0.87, 95% CI (-2.19 to 0.83)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(5.09) = 1.69, p = 0.301, Cohen d = -1.20, 95% CI (-1.27 to 6.22)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(4.11) = 0.79, p = 0.943, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-3.06 to 5.53)

Pathway Summary”

Pathway Summary”

Consort map

Demographic information

Measurement

Table

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Text

Likelihood ratio tests

Post hoc analysis

Table

Between group

Within treatment group

Within control group

Plot

Clinical significance

Insomnia group

Other method